Standing Committee F

Mr. George Stevenson

Hunting Bill

Clause 1 - Hunting wild mammals with dogs

Amendment made: No. 117, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 6, after 'registered' insert 
 'for the purpose of pest control'.—[Rob Marris.]

James Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. This is the Committee's 16th sitting and, so far, we have dealt only with part 2 of the Bill. A substantial amount of work lies ahead on an unwhipped Bill on a subject that has been under consideration for the best part of 100 years. It is a difficult and controversial Bill, so would it be in order to ask for the Programming Sub-Committee to be reconvened to consider extending the time available to the Committee?

Marion Roe: Such consideration would be more appropriately requested through the usual channels and if that is done, I shall be prepared to consider any request made to the Chair.

Alun Michael: On a point of order, Mr. Stevenson. It is clear that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) is preparing for some rhetoric. The offer of plenty of time for debate has existed since the beginning. Clearly, he wishes to shift his ground in the usual channels. We know how to treat that.

Marion Roe: That is not a point of order. Three minutes of valuable time have been taken up on points of order. Perhaps we can now move on.
 Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to take the following:
 New clause 1—Hunting of wild mammals— 
 'The Government shall issue licences in pursuance of Schedule (Licences) to those individuals and groups who wish to hunt a wild mammal. A person who takes part in hunting without such a licence will be committing an offence.' 
New clause 2—Register of licensed individuals and groups— 
 'The Secretary of State shall maintain a register of those hunts and individuals licensed to hunt under section (Hunting wild mammals), together with the terms of the license issued to them, which shall be open to public inspection.' 
New schedule 2—Licences—
 1. A licence will be granted by the Secretary of State to the groups, clubs or individuals whose names and addresses appear in an appendix to the licence to use hounds or other dogs to hunt the species of wild mammal detailed in the appendix, in accordance with the following terms and conditions. 
 2. All applications for licences to hunt mammals using dogs shall be made in writing to the Secretary of State, who may not unreasonably withhold such a licence, always understanding that the applicant undertakes to adhere to the terms of the licence. 
 3. The licence shall be issued on a three-yearly basis. 
 4. The licensee will pay a fee to cover the cost of the administration of the licence, which will be set from time to time by the Secretary of State but will initially be the sum of £50 for an individual, or £250 for a group. 
 5. The Secretary of State will investigate any complaint made to him of an alleged breach of the terms of the licence, and if the allegation is well founded under English law, he may take appropriate action against any individual or group as he sees fit from the following:— 
 (a) issue a public warning or censure of any group or individual; 
 (b) appoint on such terms as he thinks fit a person to supervise the activities of the individual or group; 
 (c) suspend the licence for such period as he sees fit, but which may not be any longer than twelve months, after which the group or individual could reapply; 
 (d) revoke the licence for an indefinite period; 
 (e) ban an individual from any of the licensed activities for life. 
 Revocation of the licence shall only occur with twelve months notice in writing. 
 6. The licence and its constraints shall extend to group officials and mounted and dismounted followers and to spectators who are members of the group or club. The licensee shall use reasonable endeavours to ensure that they comply with the terms of the licence. 
 7. The licensee may only enter land to exercise the terms and conditions of this licence where he has obtained prior permission to do so from the individual or organisation that is legally responsible for the granting of such permission. On any occasion on which dogs stray onto land where there is no landowner's permission, the licensee will use reasonable endeavours to withdraw them as soon as practicable. 
 8. The licensee will use reasonable endeavours to ensure that adequate and proper arrangements are made to protect the safety of participants, followers and any others who accept authority of the licensee. 
 9. The licensee will use reasonable endeavours to ensure that statutory law and relevant byelaws are observed in proper exercise of the licence.In particular the licensee will take reasonable care— 
 (a) to prevent disturbance to agricultural livestock; 
 (b) to prevent disturbance other users of the land; 
 (c) to ensure that the fences, gates, tracks and other appurtenances over which the licence is exercised are left in good order to the satisfaction of the landowner; and 
 (d) to ensure compliance at all times with any statutory requirement relating to the protection or welfare of all animals. 
 10. The licensee will use reasonable endeavours to ensure that group members, followers and spectators are fully aware of the terms of the licence including any instructions to minimise damage to property and disturbance to other wildlife, legitimate users of the countryside or neighbouring residents. 
 11. The use of firearms is prohibited, with the exception of those firearms used for the humane destruction of wild animals. 
 12. The digging out of wild mammals is only permitted for the purposes of wildlife management and with the express permission of the landowner or person with legal authority to exercise such permission; except where the wild mammal is injured or sick, when it may be dug out and humanely destroyed.In the event of a sick or injured mammal being dug out without the landowners's permission, the licensee must keep a written record that explains the justification for so doing.
 13. The licensee will submit a written report to the Secretary of State within thirty days of the final fixture under the terms of this licence detailing— 
 (a) the number of days on which licensed activities occurred; 
 (b) the number of the hunted mammals seen or disturbed; 
 (c) the number of the hunted mammals chased; 
 (d) the number of the hunted mammals killed; and 
 (e) any records pertaining to digging out under paragraph 12. 
 14. The Secretary of State, or agencies appointed by him, will undertake the monitoring of activities, and from time to time may appoint officers to attend fixtures, in order to ensure compliance with the terms of the licence. The licensee will ensure that full cooperation is given to the appointed officers. 
 15. The licensee will indemnify any third parties against any loss or damage, injury or death arising from the exercise of the licence. Groups and clubs will during the period of the licence maintain an insurance policy with a reputable insurance company to an amount of not less than £5 million in respect of any one claim. The amount of such insurance shall not limit the liability of the licensee. The licensee will produce the said insurance policy and receipt for the premium paid not more than 14 days after the issue of the licence.'.

Alun Michael: Clause 1 sets out clearly the purpose of the Bill and I need say no more than that because hon. Members will want to speak to their new clauses and new schedule, to which I shall respond in due course.

James Gray: As we move on to clause 1 and our proposal that it should be removed and replaced with new schedule 2 and new clauses 1 and 2, we come to an illogicality at the very heart of the Bill. Irrespective of which side of the argument one is on, it is important to try to make the Bill workable, sensible and logical from a legal standpoint, leaving aside our debate on whether hunting with dogs should be allowed and under what circumstances. If it is not a good Bill, it will not, as the Minister said, stand the test of time. We want to correct the substantial and fundamental illogicality in the clause because it is bizarre to start from the presumption that hunting with dogs should be outlawed and become a criminal offence unless it is possible to prove to the registrar that the cruelty and utility tests are satisfied or that it should become exempt.
 In Committee, Opposition Members have gone to great lengths in the past few weeks to try to prove that some practices are crueller than others, but the Committee has been unable to conclude which are more and which are less cruel. Is hunting with dogs more or less cruel than shooting with a shotgun at night? Is it more or less cruel than gassing or snaring? We do not know and despite our debates in Committee we have signally failed to reach a clear conclusion about which practices are more and which are less cruel. We have consistently decided to leave that decision entirely to the registrar and the tribunal. That is an illogical place from which to start. 
 The only purpose in outlawing hunting with dogs in the clause, leaving aside the exemptions and the registration, would be if there were undeniable evidence that hunting with dogs was, in some way or another, cruel. Otherwise, there is no purpose in doing so. If all we seek to do is examine whether hunting is 
 cruel, it would be sensible to leave that to the registrar or the licensing system to sort out. The only purpose in making hunting illegal would be if there was a presumption that it was cruel in some way or other. All the considerations have failed to establish that it is cruel. 
 Lord Burns went to great lengths to say that he had not concluded that hunting was necessarily cruel and the majority of scientists involved in the hearings at Portcullis house were of the same opinion. Even in Committee, no evidence has been advanced to show that hunting with dogs is necessarily cruel. Some people would say that it is more cruel than other methods and there has been some debate about its relative cruelty. We tried to introduce what I described as a hierarchy of suffering and to include in the Bill a list that stated which practices were crueller than others. Government Members defeated that proposal. They have consistently refused to say that hunting with dogs is, by definition, cruel and I challenge them to say so. Is hunting with dogs, by definition, cruel? The clause implies that it is. The suggestion is that hunting is a cruel practice, which will be allowed only in certain registered circumstances. However, everyone who has considered the matter has concluded that hunting is not necessarily, by definition, cruel. 
 Indeed, the very fact that the Committee is sitting here today considering the matter proves that there is no such presumption. If there were, presumably, the Government would have introduced a Bill to ban hunting with dogs outright, as they have done in the past, yet they have not done so. The fact that the Minister, who argued passionately in favour of an outright ban during the previous Committee stage, has returned with this Bill and now says that, in some circumstances and for some reasons, hunting with dogs may be reasonable demonstrates that there is no conclusion that hunting with hounds is cruel. There is a fundamental illogicality at the heart of the Bill in the form of clause 1. 
 Everyone knows that the Bill will not necessarily mean the death of one fewer fox. Nobody claims that it will, with the exception of a few people who believe that foxes should all be allowed to die of old age. Very few people on the Committee argue that all foxes should be allowed to live. Indeed, considering the Scottish experience, the presumption is that if hunting with dogs were banned, at least the same number of foxes, and very probably considerably more, would be killed. We are talking not about the number of foxes killed, but the means by which they are killed and which practices are more or less cruel. 
 New clauses 1 and 2 and new schedule 2 take the Government's stated aim at face value. That stated aim is that the Bill is about animal welfare and not about human behaviour, people in red coats, horses or any of the things associated with hunting. The Conservatives want to discuss which methods of killing foxes and other animals would be more or less cruel and which would be more or less acceptable from an animal-welfare standpoint. In that context, it is worth quoting something that Lord Burns said during 
 the Portcullis house hearings. He said that ''the bulk'' of the concerns that the Burns report raised about hunting 
''might be addressed through licensing, a regulatory approach or by changing the rules of the hunt''. 
At no stage did he say that the concerns should be sorted out by banning or by registration of the sort in the Bill, or that there should be a presumption against hunting. 
 Lord Burns mentioned licensing or changing the rules of the hunt. That is precisely what we propose under new schedule 2. New clauses 1 and 2 simply make matters possible; new schedule 2 is the heart of the group. The new schedule lays out in some detail precisely which practices can and cannot be used by a hunt. We have attempted to run through the whole gamut; it is a reasonably substantial schedule with, from memory, some 20 or 30 paragraphs. It covers all the aspects that people might want to know about, including that licences are to be issued 
''by the Secretary of State to the groups, clubs or individuals'', 
that all applications are to be ''made in writing'' and that licences are to be 
''issued on a three-yearly basis'', 
with the applicant paying the cost. The schedule states that the Secretary of State shall investigate ''any complaint made'' against the licensees and that certain penalties are payable for breach of licence, varying from a ''public warning'' to a ban for life. The group or individual applying for the licence would have to be responsible for followers, in so far as they were under their control—obviously, they could not be responsible for passers-by. 
 The schedule contains regulations on where licensees could go—they could enter land only with the permission of the landowner—and on using ''reasonable endeavours'' to ensure that participants are safe, even coming to an arrangement with guards to that effect. It states that the 
''use of firearms is prohibited'', 
contains detailed regulations about the 
''digging out of wild mammals'' 
and requires written reports to be returned to the Secretary of State within 30 days of the end of the season, laying out precisely what the hunt has been up to. There are various other, similar constraints. 
 That draft licence is based on licences given by the Labour Government for the past six years, and before that, to hunts that hunt across Ministry of Defence and Forestry Commission land. We have tried to amalgamate those licences and give them a workmanlike structure, which might be attractive to both sides of the Committee. We are not saying that the draft licence in new schedule 2 must be the be-all and end-all; but if we believe that some hunting practices need to be constrained and that there is something wrong with the way in which hunting works at the moment, then let us as legislators in Parliament say what is wrong and how it should be put right. Let us come up with a sensible licence, like a shotgun, alcohol or driving licence. Let us lay down plainly 
 what hunts have to do and state that, if they breach the terms of the licence, they will have to pay the penalties laid down. 
 If we included the licence in the Bill, it could be amended only by primary legislation and could not be changed by subsequent Secretaries of State. The licence could be negotiated. The Committee might better spend its time negotiating terms and conditions, laying down what some Labour Members think should be banned and what many Opposition Members think should be allowed. We would then have a sensible debate about what type of licence to have and could tell people who wish to hunt: ''There you are—there are the terms and conditions. That is what you have to do to be allowed to hunt. If you breach those terms, you will suffer penalties varying from the removal of your licence to a ban for life.'' 
 That seems an eminently sensible and liberal approach. We would show what was wrong and what we wanted to happen. Requirements on individuals would be laid out in a straightforward and clear way. That stands in stark contrast to the lay-out of the Bill, which leaves that entirely to someone outside this place. We in the Committee, as legislators, will have said that we do not know and cannot say whether hunting with dogs is more or less cruel and lamping by night is better or worse—and that we do not intend to say, but shall leave the matter to the registrar, then a complex structure of the tribunal, High Court and points of law. We will be saying that we are unable yet to say what is good, bad or indifferent about hunting, but that it will all become clear over the many years of legal cases that lie ahead. 
 I challenge the Committee, Parliament and the Minister to include in the Bill, straightforwardly and in writing, precisely how we want hunting with dogs of any kind to be regulated. That seems eminently reasonable. One of the fundamental purposes of legislation is for us to lay down here exactly what we want to happen in the country. Otherwise, we are saying: ''We don't know, it is all too difficult. We'll leave it to a civil servant to sort it out'', while Labour Members hope that the civil servant will ban hunting and Opposition Members hope that he will not. That seems a fundamentally unsatisfactory form of legislation. 
 That shows the fundamental illogicality in clause 1. It presumes that hunting, for some reason, is a bad thing. It presumes that it is cruel, despite the lack of evidence to that effect and the fact that we have not said here that it is. Despite that presumption, the clause then says, rather bizarrely, that under certain circumstances hunting might be allowed. In new clauses 1 and 2 and new schedule 2, we propose that the presumption should be the other way round; that we will allow the use of dogs for the pursuit and killing of mammals of one sort or another under certain conditions. The conditions are plain. If they are breached, there will be trouble. That seems to be a liberal, sensible and legally logical way of laying out the Bill.
 The Bill is badly drafted. For that reason, clause 1 should not stand part of the Bill. New clauses 1 and 2, and new schedule 2 should replace it.

Edward Garnier: I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire said. I would like to move the discussion on to a drier aspect of the effects of clause 1, by trying to unravel it in a comprehensive and rational way. I have five preliminary points.
 First, clause 1 and the Bill as a whole demonstrate no requirement to prove unnecessary suffering or intention to cause it. A person commits an offence if he hunts a wild mammal with a dog, unless the hunting is either registered or exempt. Secondly, there is no requirement to prove that the individual intended to hunt with dogs to lead to a conviction. Thirdly, the scope of the offence is uncertain. In my view, that is likely to weaken the result. Followers could be caught as criminals, even if they have no control or influence over the dog alleged to be involved in the hunting. That has implications for individuals walking their dogs in the countryside. Fourthly, the criminalisation of followers shows that the Bill is concerned more with the regulation of human conduct than with animal welfare. 
 Fifthly, almost without exception, across the wide range of animal welfare legislation over the past 100 years or so, conduct relating to animals is criticised on three grounds only. The first is if it causes unnecessary suffering or distress; for example, the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 requires proof of 
''unnecessary pain or unnecessary distress''. 
The second ground is if intention or criminal recklessness is proved. One need only look at the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 and the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 to see that there is certainty as to the scope of the offence. It is a principle of legal policy that a person should not be penalised except under clear law or, in other words, should not be put in peril upon an ambiguity. This is not a new criticism. I refer again to clause 1. I am amazed by its content and apparent lack of recognition of statutory history. The Burns inquiry, however, was aware of it. It recommended that: 
''Consideration should be given to whether any ban could be framed sufficiently clearly to enable people to regulate their conduct. A central issue is whether a Bill would need to have a detailed definition of the prohibited offence and any exceptions or exemptions.'' 
I suggest that the Bill fulfils none of the three requirements. It does not have a clearly stated purpose. It is enormously important to establish the purpose of any legislation, not least so that the courts can interpret it by reference to purpose. The objective of a measure is the starting point when considering whether it is proportionate. This is all the more important now that the Government have introduced into domestic law the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights. The objective 
 must be clearly defined and should find expression in the letter of the law. If the Bill is aimed at animal welfare, that should be stated, as it is in the 1996 Act. 
 I have three further points. First, the Bill is not about animal welfare, but about human behaviour and its regulation. Secondly, there is no requirement in the Bill to show that the accused had a specific intention to hunt, let alone to cause any unnecessary suffering. One can search through the Bill—clause 45 in particular—to see whether we can get any help. An individual who acts, and who believes himself to act, in the best interests of an animal by seeking to relieve unnecessary suffering may be rendered a criminal. Without a clear requirement for the prosecution to prove specific intent, the court may be likely to develop a definition that relies upon degrees of risk and foresight, which would be extremely difficult to apply in the context of hunting. 
 I have concerns about the scope of the offence. Subject to the exceptions relating to registered and exempt hunting in clause 5, a person commits an offence if they hunt a wild mammal with a dog. A number of concerns flow from the way in which clause 1 is drafted and the way in which the Bill is presented. We have already discussed coursing. The Government have decided that hare hunting, stag hunting and deer hunting are to be outlawed without the registrar being able to consider the matter.

Nicholas Soames: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the Minister has arbitrarily written off hare coursing and deer hunting without producing any evidence?

Edward Garnier: My hon. Friend is right. The Minister has been asked that question on a number of occasions but he has not condescended to give us an intellectual or rational answer. We have four more sittings in Committee and we may get an hour or so on Report and Third Reading, which will depend on the number of statements on the day on which the Bill returns to the Floor of the House. The Government may think better of the way in which they have handled the question and come up with some answers.
 I am particularly concerned that the definition of wild mammal in clause 45 is hardly complete. It relates to whether a mammal is wild, and it should not be controversial because it does not address whether a hare is a rodent or a mammal. If a hare is both a mammal and a rodent, as suggested by the concise Oxford dictionary, the hunting of hares would be prohibited unless it were registered hunting. 
 The definition of hunting in clause 45(2) directly hangs from clause 1, which sets up the offence. It provides a non-exhaustive definition, which includes any case in which 
 ''a person engages or participates in the pursuit of a wild mammal, and one or more dogs are employed in that pursuit (whether or not by him and whether or not under his control or direction).'' 
The definition is crucial because it attempts to define the core component of the offence, namely what ''hunting a wild mammal'' means. People, particularly 
 those who are interested in mounting private prosecutions because they are in the habit of following hunts not to take part in the hunting, but to monitor the activities of those who do will look at clause 45 to find out whether an offence is being committed. 
 The word ''includes'' in clause 45 indicates that the definition is not exhaustive and that other Acts could be covered. A definition that is not exhaustive is, by its very nature, lacking in the certainty and clarity that fairness and natural justice demand because it makes the definition practically useless. It is also makes it impossible to predict with any certainty who would be committing a criminal offence and who would not. If we do anything in this Parliament in creating legislation, particularly in the field of criminal law, it is essential that we allow those who currently enjoy hunting to know precisely what it is that they may or must not do if the Bill becomes law. 
 I am concerned about the implications for those searching for quarry or wild mammals. At the moment, searching for a wild mammal is likely to fall within the definition of hunting. I am concerned for dog walkers. The definition of hunting would allow for prosecution when a single dog is in pursuit of a wild mammal. With no specific need to prove an intention to hunt, it will provide scope for dog walkers to be caught by the legislation, which I am sure is not the Government's intention. If hunting does include searching, it could place dog owners with no association with any hunting organisation at risk of prosecution. Dogs naturally search and pursue mammals. For the purpose of criminal liability, a person may be taken to know and intend the natural consequences of his actions. Accordingly, a person taking his dog for a walk in an area that may be inhabited by mammals, such as deer or hares, could be committing a criminal offence and would be liable to prosecution whether the dog chased any mammals or not.

Hugo Swire: Is it my hon. and learned Friend's understanding that even if the police showed restraint towards such an incident, the individual walking that dog could be liable to private prosecution?

Edward Garnier: Yes. If the evidence were there, a private individual or even an organisation through one of its officers could lay information at the relevant magistrates court to mount a private prosecution. In some circumstances, the Crown will take over a prosecution and prevent it from proceeding on the grounds of public interest or other specified grounds. My hon. Friend is right.
 We are dealing with matters that will be dealt with primarily by the summary jurisdiction of the magistrates court. That is the classic place for individuals outside the confines of the Crown Prosecution Service and the police to bring matters of that sort to the court's attention. Bearing in mind the political and emotional controversy that lies behind the subject, it is highly likely that a large number of private prosecutions will be initiated—if not completed—as a result of the Bill coming into effect. 
 Those organisations that want hunting to be banned lock, stock and barrel will do their utmost to ensure that the Bill is tested to its limits, and sometimes to destruction so that they can demonstrate to their shareholders—those who have paid money into their coffers to ensure that their campaign is successful—that the shareholders are getting value for money. For every pound put in, they will want their ounce of policy out. 
 The magistrates courts will be kept pretty busy from the outset. I hope that the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Attorney-General, the Home Office or the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will issue some guidance about the way in which such prosecutions should be handled. After the initial flurry of excitement in the first year or two or three, the number of initiated private prosecutions may well decrease, but the danger is there. 
 The final point I want to make about clause 1 relates to followers. It seems likely—I put it no more strongly than that—that the definition of hunting will cover followers. That can be gleaned from the reference to a person ''participating'' in the pursuit of a wild mammal in clause 45(2)(a), whether or not the dogs used in that pursuit are under that person's control or direction. The fact that the provision would catch followers is also indicated by clause 2(2), which refers to hunting by an individual being registered if he participates in hunting by a group where his participation in the hunting is recorded. In some ways, that reference adds nothing to the definition of hunting, but it is likely that the provision is intended to ensure that those holding a group registration should keep a record of all who follow a hunt on a particular day. We ought to be aware of that area of concern. 
 An individual may be convicted of an offence of hunting with dogs, even though he has no control over or responsibility for the dogs used in the hunt. As the conduct of followers has no influence on whether the hounds catch a mammal, the prosecution of those individuals can have nothing to do with concerns about animal welfare, because their conduct would have no influence on the welfare of any animal. As I said at the outset of my remarks, the objective of the Bill—at least in that provision—is to penalise human conduct, not to promote animal welfare. 
 The new schedule, which sets out what I loosely call the MOD-model licence—my name is attached to new schedule 2—is the best of a bad job. The idea contained in new schedule 2 is the best that we can hope for, given where we are. I hope that the Government, if not those of their supporters who want a total ban, will at least carefully consider new schedule 2, which would provide for licences that are very similar to others that the Government issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire said. 
 At the beginning of the Bill is a legally imperfect clause that will lead to the clogging of magistrates courts with the sort of private prosecutions to which my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) referred, and to a genuine sense of 
 misunderstanding and lack of comprehension among people who hunt about what they may or may not do, when and if the Bill becomes law.

Andrew George: I wish to make a brief contribution to the debate. I would describe the nature of the debate so far as a boot-on-the-other-foot debate, in that there seems to be an attempt to rehearse arguments that we have already heard. Fair enough; it is important to deal thoroughly with the issues. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire sincerely believes that hunting has not been proven to be more cruel. However, the general consensus is that hunting has not been proven to be less cruel. It depends on which way one looks at the matter, but the general presumption behind the Bill, which I endorse, is that hunting is more cruel.

Gregory Barker: The hon. Gentleman says that he supports the presumption that hunting is more cruel. On what scientific, clinical or veterinary evidence is that presumption based?

Andrew George: My presumption is based on my own experience and consideration of the evidence. One must come to a conclusion on such matters. People on both sides of the debate have studied the clinical and veterinary research and other evidence that is available, such as the Burns inquiry, and have come to very different conclusions, having looked at exactly the same evidence.
 When people say that they want more evidence, what they really want is more evidence to support their point of view. If there were even more research, it would not change views that have already been decided. It is clear in the Committee, from the nature of the sincerely held and well-presented arguments on both sides of the debate, that further research will not necessarily inform or change opinions.

Hugo Swire: To enlighten the Committee, the hon. Gentleman says that he bases his opinions on his own research.

Andrew George: My own experience.

Hugo Swire: His own experience. Would he enlighten the Committee as to which of stag hunting, foxhunting, shooting a fox or hare coursing he has done?

Andrew George: I have followed foxhunting and inspected the arrangements made by my family for controlling foxes on their farm, and I have reviewed the evidence that is available to the Committee. It is not necessary for one to experience everything in order to reach a conclusion and legislate on a matter. In that case, all Members would have to do everything before they reached a conclusion on legislation before the House. The debate will continue and we will want to rehearse it.
 Having brought the Bill forward in its current form—many hon. Members would find it helpful if the Minister were clear on this point in his response—can the Minister demonstrate the circumstances in which a hunt is presumed to offer a less cruel method of pest control than other methods? In order to have justified the need for registration, he must have looked at a number of scenarios and concluded that either there are or there may be circumstances in which hunting as defined by the Bill provides a less cruel method of pest control. I hope that he will include that in his response.

Peter Luff: My remarks fall into two categories. First, I have some practical objections to clause 1; secondly, I shall set out the Middle Way Group's approach to new schedule 2.
 The Middle Way Group has some concerns about the definitional issues. It was a privilege to hear the remarks made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier), who set out serious and important legal arguments about the inadequacies of the clause. The Minister would be wise conscientiously to address those issues in his winding-up remarks. We share my hon. and learned Friend's concern about the question of what is hunting. 
 The offence in clause 1 requires a wild mammal to be hunted with dogs. When is the offence actually committed? When hounds first start to hunt a fox, for example, they will probably follow its scent. The fox may not be in sight and may be moving away at its own pace unaware that dogs are anywhere near it. It is only in the latter part of the hunt that the hounds will see the fox or the fox will become aware that it is being hunted. Indeed, sometimes hounds find a scent and follow it the wrong way. I am told that that is called following the heel line as opposed to following the toe line. If the hounds follow the fox in the wrong direction, are they hunting the fox? We need to know because such practical issues could be used to defend a hunt in the event that the clause becomes law.

James Gray: My hon. Friend is making an extremely good point. He could also ask whether hunting the fox involves the chase or the kill because the clause does not tell us.

Peter Luff: My hon. Friend leads me to another important point. I respect the sincerity of Labour Members who do not like the idea of chasing wild animals, which is a debate that we had last week. I believe that they are wrong because they make anthropomorphic assumptions about the nature of the chase. However, their view is honourable and sincerely held.
 My hon. Friend has just pointed out that the clause does not distinguish between the chase and the kill, which is a serious defect in the legislation. A hunt galloping across a field may not be chasing a wild animal because it may be in pursuit of absolutely nothing. For a prosecution to succeed under the clause, would the prosecution have to show that a wild animal was present? Would that not make policing the Bill impossible? If no animal is present, there can be no 
 offence, which will drive a coach and horses through the legislation. Definitions of activities are vital in terms of enforcement. What a person does and what a dog does—every dog has a propensity to hunt—must be clearly defined in order to let ordinary people understand exactly what is being made illegal under the clause. Hunting with dogs means different things to different people. We all know what it means. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. However, everyone has a different idea of what constitutes a duck.

Edward Garnier: My hon. Friend says, ''We all know.'' What does he mean by ''We''?

Peter Luff: I mean each of us individually. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, with his sharp legal mind, for helping me to clarify what I mean. [Interruption.] I decline the Minister's invitation to quack. Individually, we think that we know what hunting means. Each of us has our own understanding, but that understanding is not shared. If we examine what hunting with dogs means in practical terms, we will discover that we have all reached different conclusions. The Bill does not give an adequate definition. Indeed, it may be beyond the law to define hunting with dogs. That is one of the practical objections that I raised earlier.

James Gray: May I give my hon. Friend another example of the kind of absurdity that he is arguing against? Labour Members are in favour of drag hunting. Let us imagine a drag hunt out for the day. Supposing the hounds were accidentally to catch and kill a fox. Would the drag hunt be guilty when it met? Would it be guilty during the chase following the clean boot? Or would it be guilty when the hounds accidentally killed the fox? Which judge will come to a conclusion about that?

Peter Luff: That issue was wrestled with in relation to the Scottish legislation. The phrase that was used there to resolve the difficulty was the ''intent to kill'' an animal. Under the Scottish legislation, presumably the drag hunt would be free of any blame, but I do not know what would happen under the Bill. That is an important question. As I was saying, all dogs tend to hunt. If any dog is unleashed and hunts a wild mammal, a case could be made that, regardless of the human intentions, the dog is hunting. Indeed, cat owners are happy to let their pets out of doors to hunt and do so on a regular basis. However, cats are not part of the Bill and I promise that I will not pursue that argument.
 There are genuine definitional difficulties, which perhaps stem from Labour Members misunderstanding exactly what hunting is. They simply do not understand the practical issues involved, which makes it difficult to shape appropriate legislation. That brings me to new schedule 2. I feel considerable nostalgia and a sense of pyrrhic victory; although victory none the less. I vividly remember the day when a leaflet from the Wildlife Network arrived in my parliamentary post. It suggested an alternative approach to the vexed question of hunting with dogs. 
 I had long been conscious of my deeply held view, supported by the evidence, that hunting was not intrinsically cruel and that the alternatives were more cruel. 
 However, I was also conscious of the fact that there were many problems with hunting and I felt that some of my friends in the hunting world did not face up to those problems. Here was a way through and a way to cut the gordian knot. It was politically saleable, would have had the effect of restricting the freedom of hunts and would have genuinely improved animal welfare. It would also have fundamentally maintained an activity that I believe is not intrinsically cruel. 
 The Middle Way Group has come up with a number of ideas about how the issue could be addressed. Most recently, there was the Wild Mammals (Protection) (Amendment) Bill, which related to the 1996 Act and which was introduced by Lord Donoughue in another place. That was coupled with the recognition of codes of conduct. The second approach was the options Bill, which was drafted by the parliamentary draftsmen and is reflected in new clauses 5, 6, 7 and 8, which still appear on the amendment paper but have already been debated. When the Minister outlined his approach of utility and least suffering, the Middle Way Group could see the intellectual logic of the case. We thought that the utility and least suffering tests could work if they were properly defined and so we gave a cautious welcome to the Bill. To our sadness, we realised that the utility test, as it is currently defined, would ban most forms of hunting and so reduce animal welfare. 
 Over the Christmas holidays, my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire sent me a number of drafts of new schedule 2 and solicited my views on them and support for them. I was delighted to lend my name to the new schedule, not just as an hon. Friend, but as a member of the Middle Way Group. The schedule represents another entirely valid way forward and could resolve the matter. Now that we know that the utility test has been badly and inadequately defined, we know that it will not advance animal welfare. We must find another way forward. I hope that the Minister—I know that he is committed to animal welfare and that that is common across the Committee—will reflect on whether the approach in new schedule 2 might not do the job rather better. 
 I pay tribute to those in the hunting world who originally fought the proposals of the Middle Way Group tooth and nail. They bitterly resented the intrusion of legislation and regulation into their activities. They felt that they had an unfettered right to hunt. I was the victim of quite a lot of criticism from a number of people in the hunting world about the approach that the Middle Way Group proposed. However, we now see the hunting world endorsing new schedule 2. I welcome that huge sea change in the opinion of the hunting world; although not, I suspect, in that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire, with whom I have discussed the matter several times.

James Gray: I agree with every word that my hon. Friend has said, but I do not agree that the hunting world bitterly opposed what he was proposing. I have
 hunted under such a licence on Salisbury plain for 30 years. It works perfectly well. I remember talking to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) when he was Home Secretary, and proposing such a licensing solution. Although I am part of the old-style hunting fraternity, as he would call it, I have been a member of the Middle Way Group for many years. I congratulate the group on the work that it has done to come up with such a solution.

Peter Luff: I have an opportunity now publicly to pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has shown a rare flexibility of thought and intelligence of approach. That does not always characterise debates on hunting. Nationally and locally, I have been criticised for supporting the sort of approach outlined in new schedule 2. I have heard words such as, ''Leave us alone; you don't understand. We should be left to get on with it''. If the Independent Supervisory Authority on Hunting had been set up 10 or 15 years earlier, that leave-it-alone approach might have worked. I remember a leading supporter of the League Against Cruel Sports—a Labour Member of this House—telling me that if the codes of conduct had earlier been tightened as they now have been, and if ISAH had been set up sooner, the campaign to ban hunting would not have been able to gather steam. The right regulatory framework on a voluntary basis is now in place. However, the hunting world tragically left those changes too late, so we now need statute law to control hunting if we are to put this wretched political issue to bed.
 I should mention in passing that my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) is not here because he has had to go to discuss the deaths of soldiers in army camps. He took the judgment, with which I agree, that the death of people is more important than that of foxes. I apologise for his absence; he would like to be here to support my remarks.

Edward Garnier: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that Members such as the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) would have stopped campaigning against hunting and demanding a total ban had the Middle Way Group's proposals been passed in the previous Parliament? Such people will go on and on until they get what they want.

Peter Luff: No. I say in his absence, as I have said before, that I respect the sincerity and integrity of the hon. Member for West Ham. I believe that he approaches the argument from the genuine viewpoint that it is wrong to derive pleasure from the death of an animal. I think that I am right in saying that he is a vegetarian and does not wear leather. Although I profoundly disagree with his analysis, it is intellectually rigorous. Everyone who derives pleasure from the death of an animal needs to think much more rigorously about the issue.

Nicholas Soames: I would not want my hon. Friend to go further down that track, and perhaps end up suggesting that anyone who goes hunting derives any pleasure from the death of an animal. That is absolutely and fundamentally idiotic and untrue.

Peter Luff: I expressed myself badly, for which I apologise. I am trying to be brief, so shall not discuss this excessively, but I am referring to those who derive pleasure from the death of an animal, for example, by having a leather handbag or eating meat. We all, except vegetarians and those who do not wear leather, indirectly derive pleasure from the death of an animal. All of us in that position should look more sympathetically at new schedule 2.
 In answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough, had the ISAH approach been adopted by the hunting fraternity much earlier, many issues that cause public concern would have been dealt with, and many abuses would have disappeared much sooner. Public opinion could not then have been manipulated as it was by the RSPCA and others—shamelessly, using millions of pounds—to mount the campaign to ban foxhunting. There would have been no campaign and we would not be wasting our time on this Bill today. 
Mr. Garnier rose—

Peter Luff: I am getting dangerously close to being out of order, but I shall give way.

Edward Garnier: I will keep a close eye on my hon. Friend to ensure that he stays in order; as will you, Mr. Stevenson. My hon. Friend should be careful. I know that he is trying to compress his arguments to save time, but he would not want to be misinterpreted. The hunting authorities—whether ISAH, the Masters of Foxhounds Association or other governing bodies—have always been very strict towards, to use a wonderful adjective, rogue members of the hunting fraternity, because they bring disrepute to the hunting world. I do not accept—

Marion Roe: Order. That intervention is far too long. For the record, only one person in the Room will decide who or what is in order and that is whoever is in the Chair. The gestation of the Bill, and the historical foundation that may have led to it, is extremely interesting. It is right and proper to raise that matter, but the point has been made adequately.

Peter Luff: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Stevenson and, as always, I agree with you.
 I want to emphasise that, in Worcestershire at least, many of the objections to hunting are not related to animal welfare issues. Many people have different concerns, which are addressed clearly in new schedule 2 and relate to public order, trespass and other disturbance in the countryside. I was particularly pleased to see that paragraph 7 of new schedule 2 would require that: 
 ''On any occasion on which dogs stray onto land where there is no landowner's permission, the licensee will use reasonable endeavours to withdraw them as soon as practicable.''
That has not always happened, but would become a condition of the licence, which is welcome. Paragraph 8 would require the licensee to 
 ''use reasonable endeavours to ensure that adequate and proper arrangements are made to protect the safety of participants''. 
That has not always happened and quite a lot of the adverse media coverage of hunting has concerned the safety of hounds and participants. Paragraph 8 would enshrine that in the test for a licence, which is very welcome. It would enshrine the need to prevent disturbance to agricultural livestock and other uses of land and include any instructions to minimise damage to property and disturbance to other wildlife. It also relates to the legitimate use of the countryside and the effect on neighbouring residents. Those are maters of common courtesy, which not all hunts have always followed in the past. Knowing that there were conditions to a licence would give huge comfort to many people in the countryside whose objection to hunting may be not to pursuing a fox, but to the way in which it is done. The licence would deal admirably with those issues. 
 I am particularly pleased that paragraph 11 prohibits 
 ''The use of firearms . . . with the exception of those firearms used for the humane destruction of wild animals.'' 
I repeat that the tragedy of the Bill is that it is almost impossible to judge how the least suffering test will be met under clause 8 because we do not know the relative merits of shooting against hunting. The Middle Way Group is working on that. We do not know what its conclusion will be but we will be bound by it. I strongly suspect that its conclusion will be different from that anticipated by the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) and I was sorry to hear him say again that there was no need for further evidence. There is a pressing need for further evidence and I am pleased that the correct role for the use of firearms is recognised in new schedule 2. I welcome that.

Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend is right to say that there is a need for further research and further evidence, as was shown clearly in the Burns report. Nevertheless, we know emphatically that when hounds catch a fox, it is dispatched promptly and with a 100 per cent. success rate. We also know that that is not the case when a fox is shot.

Peter Luff: I agree with my hon. Friend. He has made his own point.
 I want to emphasise the point in new schedule 2 that 
 ''The digging out of wild mammals is only permitted for the purposes of wildlife management and with the express permission of the landowner'' 
and so on. I particularly welcome that because, as I have said, not all those in the hunting fraternity enjoy the digging out of a fox. If hunting is to be a pest control and wildlife-management process, it may be necessary to dig out a fox. The Middle Way Group will go a little further and enshrine in statute some of the matters that are already covered in codes of conduct. There is scope for including a reference to the codes of conduct by the recognised bodies within the new schedule. Nevertheless, it represents a significant improvement on what the Bill offers in terms of animal welfare and human freedom. The new schedule would 
 strike that balance. The Bill, even with the amendments made in Committee, cannot strike that balance. If Labour Members are genuinely committed to animal welfare, as I know they are, and if they are genuinely committed to human freedom, as I believe they are, they should consider new schedule 2 sympathetically. I invite them to do so.

Nicholas Soames: If I may have the Minister's attention for a moment, I hope that he will study carefully the model licence produced by my hon. Friend. It is based on a licence over which, during the enlightened days when I was Minister of State for the Armed Forces and all was well at the Ministry of Defence, I took a great deal of trouble. The matter was referred to me, since I knew about hunting, to ensure that it was correct in every way. It is an absolutely admirable licence and I hope that the Minister will deal at length with his objections to it. Officials climbed all over it to find imperfections, as they were tasked to do, and they could find none. I urge the Minister to examine with great care, and not to lightly dismiss, an extremely sane, sensible, rational, effective, and most importantly, workable licence.
 I want to speak to the new clauses in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire. The grouping would remove the existing first two clauses and put in place a proper licensing regime of the type to which I have just referred. There would be a proper presumption in favour of licensing that would create a properly defined offence of hunting without a licence. At present, the offence is inconsistent with the properly defined offence of intentionally causing unnecessary suffering, which represents a presumption underlying the Bill; the case that hunting is cruel has been made. 
 Mr. Stevenson, you have sat here for many days now, and that case has clearly not been made. The real motives behind the Bill are therefore betrayed. For people who support and love hunting, and for many whose lives and communities revolve around it in a way that, sadly, many Labour Members find impossible to understand, the Minister's mask has slipped as the Bill has proceeded. It has been clear during the Committee that politics, not evidence, is driving the Bill. The Minister, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough said, has written off stag hunting and hare coursing as if the case against them has been found and proved. It has not. No such case has been made or proved. The Minister, despite repeated requests to make that case, has quite clearly refused to put forward any evidence in that regard. 
 It has been robustly represented to me by hunting people that the defenders of hunting were well and truly led up the garden path in co-operating with the Government by providing detailed co-operation on utility. Nowhere is that more obvious in the clause than in the reverse burden of proof for normal license application procedures. In my view, the Minister has behaved in a thoroughly underhand way. The Bill is a sham and a farce. We are debating that farce. 
 The Minister has betrayed the trust of the countryside. He has gone back on his word to base any legislation on principle and evidence. He has wholly ignored the broader aspects of utility that he pledged 
 to consider, which are so important in developing the licensing structure. I pray that the countryside will now stir itself and fight back against that mean betrayal of trust. The Bill is not fair or reasonable. 
 The definition of the offence in the clause is utterly hopeless. It lacks both legal clarity and certainty. It is also quite contrary to logic for the Bill to start with the criminalisation of hunting and then to set out a system for allowing hunting to be registered in certain circumstances. It carries no logic and is a thoroughly foolish way to proceed. The only grounds that could justify criminalizing hunting were that it was cruel. Evidence does not support that conclusion. No evidence has been brought forward to say that it is. If the activity were cruel in itself, how could it ever be right to permit it under any circumstances? 
 By starting from the existing definition of the offence, it has been necessary to reverse the burden of proof. In other words, hunting is assumed to be cruel. For it to be permitted, the person or group seeking registration must show that it is not. As evidence does not exist to justify the presumption behind the Bill that hunting is cruel, it is unreasonable to expect those wishing to hunt to prove that in a particular case it is not. One cannot disprove a presumption that has been made without proof. One cannot disprove what has never been proved. 
 That is why the Minister has resisted every amendment that sought to make available to the registrar evidence-based information that would enable him to judge between the relative methods of culling wild mammals. All methods of culling involve a degree of suffering, as Lord Burns rightly stated. The necessity relates to the way in which the activity affects the wild animal, not to the intention or reason of the individual who carries out the activity or otherwise participates. 
 At the recent hunting hearings, Lord Burns stated that the bulk of the concerns raised in his inquiry might be addressed through licensing, a regulatory approach or changes to the rules of hunting. In other words, Burns could not conclude that hunting was cruel, as he and Lord Salisbury have said in the House of Lords, but that any unnecessary suffering involved in the way in which hunting was conducted could be addressed through licensing and changes to the rules governing hunting. Therefore, a presumption that hunting is cruel is contrary to the evidence of the Burns report and the recent hunting hearings. I would be grateful if the Minister dealt with that in his response. 
 The Bill should begin on the basis that evidence to criminalise hunting does not exist and that hunting should be regulated and conducted according to best practice to prevent any unnecessary suffering relating to the conduct of hunting, not the activity itself. Worse still, the Bill makes no provision for licensed hunting to be properly regulated or carried out according to best practice, as is currently the case. It encourages the use of methods that are equally capable of causing wholly unnecessary suffering if not conducted 
 according to best practice. That is precisely what will happen, given the problems that will develop in the countryside if hunting is banned. 
 The Bill is founded on a false proposition and a total failure to understand the phrase ''unnecessary suffering'', leading to an illogical, unworkable mess.

Peter Luff: Hunting has a close season during which hunting of nursing or pregnant foxes is not possible. There is no close season for shooting. Therefore, it is inevitable that nursing and pregnant vixens will be killed by shotgun and rifle. Does my hon. Friend agree that that example exactly reflects what he is saying?

Nicholas Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. The Government simply do not understand that the most terrible vendetta will be carried out against foxes where there is no hunting. Where there is no coursing, the hare population will be killed, because they will be regarded as pests.
 One of the most iniquitous aspects of the Bill is that it simply refuses to acknowledge the incredibly important role of hunting in conservation and environmental concerns. The whole of the landscape of the midlands and much of the south-east of England was laid out for hunting. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) says not any more. It certainly is.

Rob Marris: I said, ''Not in Wolverhampton.''

Nicholas Soames: Wolverhampton; the Venice of the midlands. However, when my hon. Friend, the late Nick Budgen, was the Member of Parliament—in those wonderful halcyon days when the lawyer was not in power—Wolverhampton could have been laid out for hunting, as in the time of Enoch Powell before him.

Edward Garnier: I can confirm that; my great-uncle, Henry Staverley-Hill, was the Member for the hon. Gentleman's constituency in better days, and he used to hunt regularly.

Nicholas Soames: I had a sparklingly good hunt after a fox in Lower Sloane street only the other night. Times have changed. He eluded me in the most unsatisfactory manner.
 The Minister is twisting the Bill. He has gone on tightening the screw so that a ban can be achieved and may well be achieved, while it seems to the untrained eye—very few of which exist in the House of Lords, which he will find some difficulty in manipulating as he has the hunting community—that the Bill is a regulatory measure. 
 Moreover, the distinction between registered and unregistered hunting is directly contrary to the conclusions of the Portcullis house hearings in September, where all the experts agreed that there should be parity in legislation to protect all the various wild mammalian species from cruelty. I therefore invite the Committee to support the new clauses, which my hon. Friends support. They are a genuine attempt to tidy up this rotten Bill.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman has brought this morning's debate to life. His talk of betrayal, however, is totally without foundation; he is being petulant because he is not getting his way. When he talks about a vendetta against whole animal populations by people whom he has previously described as animal lovers because their activity is being regulated by Parliament, he seems totally unconscious of the absurdity of his position.
 The Bill is evidence based, but I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has spotted that it places the onus on the applicant to demonstrate the justification for the proposed activity. The Conservative party's aim appears to be to license cruelty and I therefore reject the proposed new clauses. The hon. Gentleman made a convoluted criticism of clause 1, which is simple in what it says and what it achieves. If hunting involves causing suffering, it is cruel unless any suffering involved is necessary, which is why we have the two tests. If an activity is not necessary, it should not be allowed. If an activity using dogs is the best way of achieving a necessary outcome with the minimum of suffering necessary to achieve that outcome, it should be allowed. If the method involves more suffering than the necessary outcome, it involves unnecessary suffering—in other words, it is cruel and should not be permitted. Other parts of the Bill, including clauses 27 and 28, do precisely what the hon. Member for North Wiltshire suggests in setting limits and conditions on any activity.

James Gray: The Minister has exposed the illogicality of his argument. To begin with, he said that we were advocating the licensing of cruelty, in other words there was a presupposition that hunting is cruel. He went on to say that under the utility and cruelty tests, if cruelty exceeds utility an activity becomes cruel. Can he justify banning an activity that we do not yet know to be cruel?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman stands logic on its head. The definition in law is that cruelty is to cause unnecessary suffering. If an unnecessary activity causes suffering it is cruelty. That is why, where it is clear that an activity is not inherently cruel, the Bill provides the applicant the opportunity to prove that there is necessity and that the least cruel method or the method that involves the least suffering is being proposed. The Bill is clear, simple, straightforward and based on principle.

James Gray: None the less, does the Minister accept that it is illogical that clause 1 contains a presumption that hunting with dogs is cruel, but clause 8 says that it may not be cruel? Surely it would be better to say that all activities should be judged under clause 8, leaving aside the presumption in clause 1.

Alun Michael: The Bill makes it clear that if an activity can be shown not to be cruel because it satisfies the tests of utility and least suffering, it can be permitted. If it does not satisfy those tests, it cannot be permitted. The wording is clear and straightforward. In trying to argue for an approach that is not logical,
 the hon. Gentleman is criticising the Bill, which is logical. The way he presented his view shows that contradiction.

Peter Luff: Will the Minister confirm his understanding of the Middle Way Group's position? We profoundly disagree with his analysis that the new clauses would license cruelty. We favour properly regulated and licensed hunting because we believe that it will be less cruel than alternative methods. There are different views across the Committee, but I invite him to confirm that he understands that we disagree with his analysis.

Alun Michael: I understand that we disagree on that analysis, but my view is that unless there are principles on which one can base one's decision—the Bill provides such principles—there is no principle against which one can license particular activities. That is why the hon. Gentleman's approach involves licensing cruelty, although I accept that he takes a different view.

Gregory Barker: Surely, if the Minister followed through his argument, it would make sense to license all forms of fox control. Does he think that the hunting with hounds of a singular fox is truly in the interests of animal welfare and against the interests of the fox? The Bill leaves people at liberty to shoot a vixen in the closed season leaving a litter of fox cubs to starve to death. It does not take that into account.

Marion Roe: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying into a speech. The Minister has got the point.

Alun Michael: On a number of occasions, Parliament has sought to deal with hunting, with which the Bill deals. The Bill allows an approach that involves hunting to be compared with other methods.

Judy Mallaber: I have looked carefully at the new schedule and the new clauses. I can find nothing in them that would enable the Secretary of State to take account of whether a licence should be granted or revoked depending on any proven acts of cruelty. Is that the Minister's interpretation because I can see no way in which cruelty could be taken into account?

Alun Michael: My hon. Friend is absolutely right because the two new clauses and the new schedule are bereft of any principle on which the system would be introduced, which is the fatal flaw. That is the gap in the proposition that is being put forward.
 The hon. Member for St. Ives asked whether in some circumstances a hunt would be presumed to be the method of least suffering. That reverses the absolute approach put forward by other Members. The measures in the Bill will provide the opportunity for the applicant to show that that is the case rather than making any such presumption. Lord Burns was not conclusive, but he said that there were circumstances—I shall deal with this in slightly more detail—in which hunting would be slightly less cruel 
 than the alternative. He did not reach a conclusion and did not propose that we should make a presumption, but said that there were such circumstances. 
 The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) asked whether it would be hunting if a dog followed a fox's scent in the wrong direction. That would depend on what the hunter was doing and not what the dog was doing. I shall return to the definition of hunting in a moment. 
 The intentions or actions of the hunter determine what is going on. Hunting has an ordinary English meaning: ''to hunt'' is the intention to pursue a wild mammal. Without that intent, a person is not hunting and is not covered by the offence in clause 1. That is the answer to the question about someone taking their dog for a walk in a park, which the Committee that considered the last Bill spent several sittings discussing and which is introduced to cause confusion.

Peter Luff: This is an important point. The Minister used the word ''intent'', which is a key word in the Scottish legislation, for the first time. Is he now saying that the intent must be to pursue the mammal with dogs, or is it that the intent must be to kill the mammal with dogs? What effect would killing the mammal with a shotgun have? How is he using the word ''intent''?

Alun Michael: I was about to point out to the hon. Gentleman that hunting is defined in clause 45(2) of the Bill. It makes it clear that hunting with a dog covers the pursuit of a wild mammal by one or more dogs, whether or not they are under control. This point adds clarity to the Bill. Hunt followers, who merely observe the progress of the hunters, or follow them at some distance without themselves engaging in the pursuit of the wild mammal being hunted, are not hunting and are not covered by the offence. They do not need to be recorded under the provisions of the Bill. We have covered this territory before so I will not dwell on it. Opposition Members appear to suggest that there is some doubt about what is set out in the Bill. There simply is no such doubt.

Edward Garnier: I am interested in what the Minister said. Clause 45(2) is not clear. Is he saying that if one happens to be a mounted follower of a hunt—one may well be 500 yd or several fields away from the pack of hounds—one is caught, whereas someone who follows the hunt on foot, a quad-bike or in a car, who may get closer to the hounds than the mounted followers, is not hunting under the definition in clause 45(2)? It is not clear from the Bill. I would be grateful for the Minister's explanation.

Alun Michael: The Bill makes it clear that it is the activity being undertaken and the intention of the individual that defines hunting. What matters is whether a person is hunting. [Hon. Members: ''What is hunting?''] I have explained. There is no doubt in the Bill. It is defined in clause 45(2). The situation is clear.

James Gray: Will the Minister give way?

Alun Michael: I shall finish my explanation to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire. It matters whether a person is hunting, not what a dog does. Whether or not the fox knows that it is being pursued is irrelevant, and it is not necessary to kill the mammal. It may escape, but would still have been hunted. Those points give the hon. Gentleman the option to quibble further.

James Gray: The Minister may call it quibbling, but these are important matters. It is important that we have clarity. There is another circumstance. Imagine that hounds find a fox and kill it straight away, with no pursuit involved. Under the definition the Minister pointed out in clause 45(2) and the offence in clause 1, would killing the fox without any form of pursuit be legal?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman again misses the point. What is governed is what people involved in the activity are doing.

James Gray: Under the circumstance I just described, the people involved would equally not be pursuing the animal. The animal was killed instantly upon being discovered. Neither the people nor the dogs pursued it. Under the Bill, would immediately killing a fox upon discovery be legal?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman again confuses a particular event or action by an animal—the dog—and the activity of hunting. What people do is the issue. He should look at the wording of clause 45(2) and what is included in the definition there.

Hugo Swire: For clarification, under clause 45(2), would a French tourist driving across Dartmoor, who saw the hunt taking place, dismounted and chose to follow that hunt be wrongfully involved in hunting, or would they be exonerated in some way?

Alun Michael: It would depend on whether he was hunting or wandering about to see what was happening. The hon. Gentleman is asking absurd questions. The Bill makes it absolutely clear what constitutes hunting. Opposition Members should not get so over-excited about that.

Hugo Swire: I am getting excited about it because the law should stand up to close examination. If that French tourist followed the hunt, would they be hunting?

Alun Michael: That is tautological. If the French tourist got out of the car and hunted, they would be hunting. If they merely observed what was going on, they would not be. For goodness' sake, that should be obvious.

Gregory Barker: Can the Minister tell me whether children of six or seven following the hunt on ponies will be liable to prosecution?

Alun Michael: The answer is obvious. It depends on whether they are hunting. If they are hunting and not undertaking activities within the Bill's ambit, they are committing an offence. If they are merely observing, they are not hunting. There is a limit to the number of times that one can repeat that extremely simple point, but once more will clearly be necessary.

Gregory Barker: The Minister says, ''If they are merely observing''. Does he accept that being mounted and following the hunt closely could simply be observing, not hunting?

Alun Michael: It depends what people are doing—whether they are hunting or not. There is a limit to the number of ways in which I can offer Opposition Members a form of words that defines the tautology to which they are referring.
 The effect of clause 1 is that hunting with dogs is banned except where it is necessary for pest control and is the method that will cause the least suffering.

Peter Luff: The Minister said that he was answering our questions, but he has not done so. The two cases that I put to him were as follows. First, what happens if a hunt goes out and there is no fox? That happens. Hunts can go all day and not find a single fox. Have they then been hunting that day? Secondly, what happens if the hounds follow the line of scent in the wrong direction? They are not pursuing a wild animal but going away from it, so are they committing an offence?

Alun Michael: I explicitly answered the second question when I said that what mattered was not what the dogs were doing but what the hunters were doing.

Peter Luff: Yes, sorry.

Alun Michael: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman understands. In answer to his first question, it depends what the individuals are doing. If they are hunting, the fact that they do not find a fox is irrelevant. What matters is the activity that they are undertaking and the intention with which they go out. That is absolutely clear and I assure hon. Members that the courts will have no difficulty with that simple matter.

James Gray: I am sorry, I do not want to interrupt, but we are moving to the heart of the matter. The Minister just said that the question is what people are doing—are they hunting or not, whether or not an animal or mammal is present. He seems to be saying that hunting might or might not involve the pursuit of a mammal. That is different from clause 45(2). He seemed to say that if people are out, chasing with hounds and the hounds cannot find a fox, they are none the less hunting. Is that what he intended to say?

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman is now becoming absurd. He is suggesting that if a group of people said explicitly, ''Let us go out and hunt a fox'' but did not find one or engage in the chase, they had
 not gone out with the intention of hunting. Of course they had. That is how absurd the hon. Gentleman's proposition is. The situation is clear.
 The effect of clause 1 is that hunting with dogs is banned except where it is necessary for pest control and is the method that will cause the least suffering. Clause 2 sets out the definitions of registered hunting, which will allow straightforward and effective enforcement. To determine whether an offence has been committed, the police must simply ask whether the hunter is registered to hunt that species of wild mammal in that area. If not, an offence has been committed. The Bill recognises that there is no utility in hare coursing and bans it completely. I have accepted the scientific evidence on the suffering caused during deer hunting, so the Bill bans that completely. We shall discuss those in more detail under later clauses. 
 As regards registered hunting, the roles of the registrar and tribunal are clear; the aim is to eradicate the cruelty associated with hunting, while allowing activities that are not cruel. That is the point of the definitions in the Bill. The amendments already accepted during the part 2 debates make it clear that such activities will be allowed only for pest control. The definition of the permitted activities is set out clearly in clause 8(1). At the other end of the scale, ratting is exempt because the alternatives of poisoning and trapping involve considerable suffering for rats and, incidentally, for other species that may be caught unintentionally. 
 New clause 1 introduces a statutory licensing regime for hunting as set out in new schedule 2. As I have said, new clause 1 would in effect involve licensing cruelty. Paragraph 2 of new schedule 2 places the onus on the Secretary of State to grant a licence, whereas the Bill places the onus on the applicant to justify any proposed activity. Under the Bill, there is no vagueness in relation to civil servants. A civil servant undertaking the role of registrar would have to be satisfied that the clear conditions were met; there is no doubt about that. Under new schedule 2, there is no requirement to justify hunting wild mammals with dogs; the activity can take place for its own sake. For example, it could be undertaken solely for fun. As my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) suggested, the proposed provisions are bereft of principle. Under the new schedule, there is also no requirement to consider whether there may be a less cruel way of achieving the objective or, in other words, a method that involves less suffering.

James Gray: Does the Minister not realise that if new clauses 1 and 2 and new schedule 2 become part of the Bill, clause 8, which defines the relative tests of cruelty and utility, will still exist? We are not suggesting that it should be removed. Presumably, the licence would be issued if the terms of clause 8 were achieved.

Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman makes a presumption that is not in the architecture of the Bill, as I am sure he knows. If he intended to apply clause 8 to his new schedule, he has made a major drafting error. The changes would not have the effect that he
 suggests. Clause 8 would not apply to the arrangements set out in new clauses 1 and 2 and new schedule 2. The Opposition Members who have put their names to the new clauses appear to oppose the fact that the two tests of utility and least suffering set out in clause 8 are applied sequentially. They sought balanced tests, but the details of the licensing scheme would allow hunting with dogs without, in effect, any significant test.
 New clause 2 is consequential and new schedule 2 sets out a model licence to be issued by the Secretary of State to those who hunt. Under paragraph 2, the Secretary of State would be under an obligation to grant licences and must 
''not unreasonably withhold such a licence''. 
The licence would last for three years. It would impose only minimal controls on hunts and would do nothing to tackle the animal welfare concerns surrounding hunting. Under paragraph 6, the licensee would be obliged to use only ''reasonable endeavours'' to ensure that those who hunt comply with the terms of the licence. Although paragraph 5 gives the Secretary of State the power to revoke the licence, that can be done only by 
''twelve months notice in writing.'' 
I have to reject such proposals as empty and without merit.

Edward Garnier: I shall be brief. My reason for catching your eye on a second occasion, Mr. Stevenson, is that I am genuinely concerned about the Minister's reply. It seemed to demonstrate a certain lack of knowledge about hunting as it is practised. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can disabuse me of this notion, but I get the impression that he thinks that hunting is the lickety-split pursuit of a fox from 11 o'clock in the morning until 4 or 5 in the afternoon. That is not what happens. Often the mounted followers will be a long way from the hounds and the pursued fox—others who are not mounted may be much closer.
 I hope that the Minister is not advancing an argument, albeit based on good faith, from ignorance of hunting. He has spoken to masters of foxhounds and I am sure that he visited hunt kennels, discussed all sorts of matters that will arise if his Bill is enacted and obtained information about what people engaged in hunting do. However, having listened to his comments just now, I am concerned that he is not aware of the minute-by-minute or hour-by-hour activities of a hunt during the course of a day. There will be times when probably all the followers—subscribers who are not hunt servants at the front with the hounds—will not be hunting under the definition in clause 45. There will be times when mounted followers will simply be sitting on their horses waiting, having been told by the field master to wait while a wood is drawn or something happens. They may hang around in the cold for quarter of an hour, 20 minutes or half an hour. 
 The Minister seems to believe that hunting is a seamless process from the moment the hunt moves off from the meet until the horses are boxed at the end of the day. He must get his head around the separate 
 activities of those who are hunting—I use the word in its loosest sense. Until he understands precisely what goes on, despite his best intentions and his discussions with those who hunt, he will fall into error and produce a bad Bill. 
 I appreciate that many of those who support the Minister—this is an important point, Mr. Stevenson, and I am sorry to bore you.

Marion Roe: Order. I am not getting bored. I never do that, but I am hearing arguments that have been thoroughly rehearsed in the past hour and a half. I do not intend to allow repetition—I am sure that every Committee member supports me in this. That is my only concern.

Edward Garnier: I do not disagree with you for a moment, Mr. Stevenson, but we are discussing an expansion of the criminal law.

Marion Roe: Order. I know exactly what we are discussing and my sole concern is to try to identify repetition, which is in no one's interest.

Edward Garnier: Perhaps, Mr. Stevenson, you got the point a lot quicker than others—[Interruption.] I realise that it is of no concern to Labour Members, but I am determined to make the point because it is important, my constitutional right and my constitutional duty. If I do not speak up for the people I represent, they have no other voice.

Mike Hall: Is that a challenge to the Chair?

Edward Garnier: It is a challenge to the lazy and complacent refusal to accept that we are discussing a fact of life. I can take any brickbats from the hon. Gentleman, whose view is entirely different from mine, but I am not prepared to be steamrollered by people who express no view and no opinion, but merely sit on their bottoms and raise their voices only to say ''aye'' or ''no'' at the relevant time. It is important to make this Bill work and to ensure that it is clear and based on the facts of what happens and what should not happen.
 I am concerned that we are reaching the position where, to use an analogy from another aspect of the criminal law, if a man puts his hand into my pocket with the intention of stealing my money but pulls his hand out having taken no money, under clauses 45 and 1, he would not be guilty of theft. He might be guilty of something else, but he would not be guilty of a criminal offence. That point was made precisely by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire. 
 I ask the Committee to consider the matter carefully before committing another legislative folly, which will have huge implications not only for the reputation of Parliament, the Minister and those who support him, but for the administration of our courts and the relationship between the rural economy and central Government. At the moment, the rural economy is on a knife edge, and the one thing that it pleads for the Government to supply is good legislation. Good legislation will not damage an already damaged rural economy.

Rob Marris: I shall try not to be repetitive. New schedule 2 is most revealing. It reveals the extent of the problems that, potentially, we have in this country. The range of activities that would be regulated and the terms that would be imposed by new schedule 2 suggests to me that some—I stress that word—hunts are running around the countryside trespassing, which is referred to in paragraph 7 of the new schedule; and not taking care of safety, as in paragraph 8; disturbing agricultural livestock and other users of the land, not ensuring that fences are left in good order, and not complying with statutory requirements, as in paragraph 9. There may be indiscriminate use of firearms, which is referred to in paragraph 11 of the new schedule. Cruel digging out may be going on, as specified in paragraph 12, and some hunts may not have any proper insurance, which is referred to in paragraph 15.

James Gray: The hon. Gentleman is trying to argue that because we are laying down laws against something, it currently happens. I would say that the current codes of conduct of most recognised hunting authorities prevent such activities. As an attempt to satisfy him, I am quite prepared to include those provisions; even though they do not happen at the moment, in my experience.

Rob Marris: If nothing were happening, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, and this were another context, he and his colleagues would argue against unnecessary red tape if such provisions were to be introduced.

Judy Mallaber: Does my hon. Friend agree that several hon. Members have had letters, as I have had, objecting to the precise practices he mentioned, such as hunts going over land when permission has not been given? In one case, a hunt went over a school ground and scared the children.

Rob Marris: I have certainly had similar correspondence to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley.
 I want to counter some of the points made by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, who again accuses us of not listening. He set out five main points, the fifth of which had three elements to it. I should like to address each of those in turn. The clause, he argued, shows no requirement to prove unnecessary suffering. Clause 1 has to be read in the context of clause 8, as the Minister pointed out. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough went on to say that clause 1 showed no requirement to prove that an individual intended to hunt, which could lead to a conviction. A few moments ago, he mentioned the hand of a thief in his pocket. I should be glad if he tried me for a criminal offence, because he went on to say that if the thief came away from the pocket empty-handed, no criminal offence would be committed.

Edward Garnier: I did not say that.

Rob Marris: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will let me finish my point, I will give way to him. He said that no offence would have been committed. I am sure that the record will show that. I listened very carefully. Of course, a criminal offence would have been committed; it is called attempted theft. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough seems to confuse, or not understand—I would refer him to the legislation concerned with offences against the person—the concepts of basic intent and specific intent and offences of strict liability.

Edward Garnier: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If he had listened to what I had said, instead of making notes about what he intended to say—[Hon. Members: ''Oh!] Dearie me. What I actually said—I have to paraphrase because I do not remember my exact words—was if the man who put his hand in my pocket pulled it out and took no money, he would not have committed the offence of theft. He might have committed some other offence, but not the offence of theft. That was more or less what I said.

Marion Roe: Order. I hope that has helped the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, but I am a little worried. The examples are pertinent, but we have had enough of them to make the point.

Rob Marris: Thank you for that guidance, Mr. Stevenson.
 The hon. and learned Gentleman's fourth point was about the criminalisation of followers. He said that the Bill was an attempt to regulate human conduct. Whoopee-doo! Are not almost all Acts of Parliament an attempt to regulate human conduct? That is a striking criticism of the Bill. 
 The hon. and learned Gentleman's fifth point, which was made up of three parts, was that the Bill did not meet conditions in previous law about unnecessary suffering and distress. Clause 1 must be read in the context of clause 8(2), to which I again refer him. He said that the Bill did not meet the conditions laid down in previous law about proving intentional recklessness. Again, not wanting to be repetitious, I refer him to what I previously said about strict liability offences involving basic intent or specific intent. References to that are scattered throughout the law of England and Wales, and the Bill is not an exception, as he seemed to suggest. 
 I wish to deal briefly with something that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire said about whether a hunt followed the scent of the heel line or the toe line, but shall deal first with the third part of the fifth point made by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, which dealt with the offence of attempt. 
 The hon. Member for North Wiltshire raised the question of the chase versus the kill and the unsuccessful chase. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough said that the scope of the offence was uncertain and that followers—French tourists, as suggested by the hon. Member for East Devon—could get caught up in a conviction. The hon. and learned 
 Member for Harborough discussed the need for certainty regarding the scope of the offence and said that one should not be put in peril for ambiguity. 
 Further to the comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire about the chase versus the kill and the points that I have just highlighted, I urge my right hon. Friend the Minister to consider very carefully the interpretation in clause 45(2). I do not think that hunting is sufficiently well defined at present. It would help those who have to enforce the legislation, as well as the Committee and the House, if there were more clarity as to what was meant by hunting, participating in hunting, following a hunt, being a spectator at a hunt and so on. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider clause 45(2).

Peter Luff: After hearing the last two contributions, we can be fairly sure that the lawyers are saying, ''Whoopee-doo.'' I am very grateful for the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. I share his concern about the implications of clause 45(2) for the clause that we are now debating. The Minister would do well to reflect on whether his definition is as watertight as he wants it to be, because I do not believe that it is. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough made a powerful point when he said that the Bill is rather like saying that one can be a thief without stealing anything. We have not properly defined the offence, and that is a real problem.
 The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is right. Some hunts have created problems of the kind set out in the licence. An assistant chief constable in my constituency told me that my local hunts would not be caught by the provisions of the Middle Way Group's licence, but that new hunts in the countryside might be. We have read in the papers about problems that occur. A major failing of the Bill is that it does not deal with the important issues that cause real concern in the countryside. 
 Finally, the Minister's comments about the intent and moral purpose of those who hunt were very significant. He has taken the debate into an entirely new area. We agreed at the Portcullis house hearings that what mattered was the welfare of the animal in question, not intent and moral purpose. Today the Minister threw over all those conclusions—I am sure that I shall be debating the matter with him later, outside the Committee—and said that the intent of the human being is now what matters. The issue will be explored at great length in another place.

James Gray: I shall briefly sum up the two ways in which the debate this morning has been extraordinarily interesting. First, we forced the Minister to admit something that he had not previously admitted, which is that he believes that the pursuit of any mammal using dogs is cruel by definition, unless it can be proved under the utility and cruelty tests that it is not, or unless it is exempt
 hunting, which we shall discuss later today. That is the first time that he has admitted that that is what stands behind the Bill.
 Flying in the face of all the evidence given to Lord Burns and at Portcullis house and elsewhere, the Minister is starting from his presumption, which goes back many years, that hunting is by definition cruel unless it can be justified by some reason. That is a clear admittance, but it is the first time that he has actually got around to admitting that. We, of course, do not agree. 
 The second point that I find interesting is the way in which clause 45(2) applies to the offences defined in clause 1. The Minister has been unable to answer the question of whether it is necessarily an offence to have a pack of hounds chasing a fox but failing to kill it. [Interruption.] I beg his pardon; that is incorrect. He said that that would be an offence. What he has failed to be clear is on whether a hunt that spends the day looking for a fox but finds nothing commits an offence. I understand that it would not because clause 45(2) refers to the ''pursuit'' of a mammal. If it could be demonstrated that there had been no pursuit of any such mammal, there would not be an offence. 
 Equally, the Minister has not answered my question as to a situation where there is no pursuit by dogs or people because the animal is killed instantly. Would that be an offence or not? My understanding of clause 45(2) is that it would not be because no pursuit was involved. More importantly, the Minister plainly exposed his thinking in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire, when he said that the question was not whether the animal was killed or pursued but whether there was the intent to do that. That seems an extraordinary admission because the word ''intent'' does not appear in the Bill. It is a very important word legally. Whether there is an intention to pursue or kill an animal is very different from whether that is actually done. The word ''intention'' does not appear in the Bill. 
 The Minister now seems to be saying—if he means this, he will have to amend the Bill—that if I put on a red coat, get on a horse, follow some hounds around all day but never see a single fox, I none the less had the intention of pursuing a fox, so I am guilty. Equally, he is saying that if I am in my red coat, galloping around on my horse, and the hounds find the fox and chop it instantly—that happens about one time in three—that would be an offence, even though under the Bill there is an offence only if the fox is actually pursued. 
 I agree with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West that the definition of hunting in clause 45(2) is a complete muddle—a lawyer's charter—that will allow the courts to ponder the matter for many years to come. 
 That is why we believe that clause 1 should be deleted and replaced by clauses that would lead to a proper licensing system. That is not licensing cruelty, as the Minister put it; it is licensing cruelty only if one believes beforehand that, by definition, hunting with dogs is cruel. If one does not believe that, one should lay down the precise ways in which a hunt can carry out its legitimate activities. In answer to the hon. 
 Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, it is absurd to say that if we make a law banning, restricting or regulating certain practices, that demonstrates by definition that those things happen. There are all kinds of regulations that do not do that.

Judy Mallaber: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Gray: If I may anticipate the hon. Lady, she may be about to say that there are allegations that those things happen. My experience is that they do not, but if she alleges that there is trespass and that people do all kinds of things that they should not, no doubt she will welcome my registration scheme. It would outlaw the things that she describes, and that she believes take place.

Judy Mallaber: If the hon. Gentleman is including all those provisions as a safeguard, why has he not included in his licensing scheme provision to refuse or revoke a licence where there is proven or alleged cruelty?

James Gray: The revocation exists in the licence; the hon. Lady has not read it very carefully. I will readily discuss precisely how the licence should read, if she will accept the principle that a licence should be issued to hunts. We could then have a sensible discussion on what should be in the licence and how it should work. That is what we do when we discuss driving, shotgun or other licences issued by the Government. Let us do that; it would be a matter for the Committee.
 However, if the hon. Lady suggests merely that because we seek to control practices under the licence it demonstrates that hunts are a bad thing, she is arguing against herself. If she believes that hunts trespass, or do not mend gates and fences—the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West seemed to suggest that—fine; I do not agree with her, but I will accept the accusation. We should therefore lay down in the licence a means of requiring hunts not to do those things. That is fine by me. The hon. Lady and I are in agreement that bringing in some form of licence in order to control those activities is a good thing. That does not happen under the Bill. 
 It would be much more sensible for the Government to put on paper precisely what they want a hunt or individuals to do. If the hunt or individuals do not do it, they lose the right to hunt. That is what the Government do with regard to car, gun, alcohol and dancing licences. The principle behind licensing is to say what must be done and what trouble one will be in if it is not. That is a liberal, sensible and straightforward approach. The Bill does not do that.
 Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 20, Noes 9.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - Registered hunting

James Gray: I beg to move amendment No. 77, in
 clause 2, page 1, line 11, leave out 'the' and insert 'one or more'.

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 78, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 11, after 'species', insert 'to be'. 
No. 79, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 12, after 'area', insert 'or areas'. 
No. 80, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 12, leave out second 'the' and insert 'it is intended that'. 
No. 81, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 12, leave out 'takes' and insert 'may take'. 
No. 82, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 17, leave out 'the' and insert 'one or more'. 
No. 83, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 17, after 'species', insert 'to be'. 
No. 84, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 18, after 'area', insert 'or areas'. 
No. 85, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 18, leave out second 'the' and insert 'it is intended that'. 
No. 86, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 18, leave out 'takes' and insert 'may take'. 
No. 87, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 4, leave out 'the' and insert 'one or more'. 
No. 88, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 4, after 'species', insert 'to be'. 
No. 89, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 5, after 'area', insert 'or areas'. 
No. 90, in
clause 2, page 2, line 5, leave out second 'the' and insert 'it is intended that'. 
No. 91, in 
clause 2, page 2, line 5, leave out 'takes' and insert 'may take'.

James Gray: We now move to a group of amendments under clauses 2 and 3 which seek to make the Bill much more workable. I hope they are a helpful series of amendments that the Minister will listen to carefully. It is funny that he sniggers at that suggestion. The purpose of considering a Bill in Committee is to look at the detail and then try to make it better. The Minister has often said that he wants the Bill to be broadly acceptable. He wants the public in the countryside to understand and believe that it is a reasonable, workable proposition. I believe he has already failed to do that, but none the less, surely he will accept our good intent, on some occasions at least, in saying that this is how we can make the Bill better.

Alun Michael: I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman seeks to write into the record things that do not happen. He said something about sniggering. I smiled politely and sweetly at the suggestion that I should listen to what he says, which I shall.

Marion Roe: Order. We might be getting too sensitive here. I am not quite sure which is more damaging—the sniggering or the smiling. I am sure the hon. Member will take it accordingly.

James Gray: I will indeed take it accordingly. I preface my remarks on the next two or three groups of amendments by saying that we believe them to be reasonably helpful, whether or not the Minister agrees.
 Amendments Nos. 78 and 87 are consequential to amendment No. 77. I seek to leave out the word ''the'' and insert the words ''one or more'' with regard to the species of wild mammals that are being hunted. It is very straightforward. At the moment, an individual or hunt that applies to the registrar must specify on the application which species they seek to hunt. That applies to most registered hunts in the UK at the moment. There are very few hunts that will hunt a second species. Beagles tend to hunt hares, foxhounds hunt foxes and deer hounds hunt deer. That is straightforward and reasonable, and would be acceptable under the Bill. However, there are several areas in which a group of dogs may well hunt a variety of wild mammals. That is particularly the case with regard to dogs used by gamekeepers. 
 The National Gamekeepers Organisation tells us that 4,000 gamekeepers use their dogs regularly in the necessary control of foxes, mink and stoats. The same gamekeepers use their dogs in the pursuit of deer on some occasions. A gamekeeper would be required to make at least three applications: one for foxes, one for mink and one for stoats. That would be an additional burden on the registrar, which we feel is unnecessary. That is why amendment No. 77 would allow the gamekeeper to apply for all three categories.
 Amendment No. 79, which would be equally helpful, and with which a whole variety of consequential amendments come, would perform a similar function regarding the word ''area''. The words ''or areas'' would be added. That takes a little more explanation. We had an interesting debate last week about the Minister's definition of the word ''area''. We teased out from him that he understood the ''area'' to be whatever it is that the applicant wishes it to be. Therefore, it would be perfectly legitimate for the applicant to go to the registrar and say that the area in which he wished to use his dogs is the whole of England, or perhaps the south of England, a county, the hunt country, a farm within it, or even a small part of that farm. 
 Most hunts will have to submit a series of parallel applications. They will have to say, ''Here are our 20 applications. I want to hunt in the whole of England. I want to hunt in the whole of Gloucestershire, in part of Gloucestershire, in a farm, and a bit of that farm.'' People will have to do that because they will not necessarily know at the beginning of the three-year period where they are going to be hunting. The same conditions will apply if the area changes during the course of those three years. Some farmers may withdraw the right to hunt on their land. It may well be that other previously unacceptable land is opened up to the hunt when a new farmer allows people to come and hunt animals on his land. 
 We would avoid an otiose repetition of applications by inserting the words ''or areas''. An applicant could apply to use dogs for hunting particular species of mammal in defined areas. A whole list could be specified in one application. If the Minister will not accept the amendment, it will be necessary for each applicant to submit multiple applications to cover the various areas in which he intends to hunt. That may well be a very large number of applications. 
 I was talking to the Beaufort hunt the other day. There is something in the order of 1,000 and 2,000 farms in the Beaufort hunt country. It will be necessary to apply for every single one of them, and every other hunt in England will be in the same position. They will presumably need to hand in 2,000 or 3,000 applications per hunt, and the registrar will be buried under the administration. By inserting the word ''or areas'' it would be possible for the hunt to specify all the areas in which it intends to hunt in the original application.

Hugo Swire: The registrar would surely become extremely bogged down because each time the applicant applied for a separate licence, it would be subject to a challenge from one of the prescribed animal welfare bodies.

James Gray: My hon. Friend makes a good point. One has to presume that each of the 2,000 or 3,000 applications submitted by the Beaufort hunt would then be subject to objection by an animal welfare body and therefore go to the tribunal. The whole system will become completely bogged down in paperwork. It is
 eminently sensible that when one puts in an application, one specifies one or more species of mammal that one intends to hunt in one area or more.

Ian Cawsey: If, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, someone made a multiple application and the registrar thought part of it unsuitable to be licensed, would the entire application fall?

James Gray: I am sure that it would be perfectly simple for the registrar to strike out one part of the application. It would be an easy administrative matter for the registrar to say that he was content with one part of the application, but not another. I know not whether that solution is technically possible under the bad drafting of the Bill, but surely it would be a sensible administrative way forward. The hunt could say what areas it wants to hunt and what species it wants to hunt in those areas. If the registrar does not like any of that, he could specify what he does not like. That seems to be a sensible way forward and would avoid the bureaucratic nightmare that is inherent in the Bill.
 The amendments are unexceptional, uncontroversial and straightforward, and would make it easier for the registrar to do his job. They might, incidentally, be slightly to our disadvantage in that burying the registrar under tonnes of paper would benefit applicants, but we are keen for the system, if we must have it, to work properly. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Alun Michael: Clause 2 sets out what constitutes registered hunting. Subsection (1) applies to individual registrations, subsection (2) applies to group registration and subsection (3) applies to people hunting with a person who is registered individually. In each case, the hunting is registered for the purposes of the Bill in respect of hunting a wild mammal of a particular species in a particular area. The clause makes it clear that to qualify to undertake registered hunting and non-exempt hunting without committing an offence under clause 1, an individual must be covered by registration concerning the wild mammal of the species being hunted and the particular area in which the hunting takes place. That is central to enforcement of the Bill's requirements.
 Under clause 2, the police must only ask a simple question to determine whether anyone undertaking non-exempt hunting is or is not committing a criminal offence under clause 1. That question is: are they registered to hunt a wild animal in a particular area? If they are, no offence is committed. If they are not, they are committing an offence. 
 Incidentally, I do not understand how the hon. Member for North Wiltshire reached the absurd conclusion that an applicant would have to make thousands of different applications. The area for which an application is made could be as large or as small as the applicant wishes in the knowledge that he would have to provide the necessary evidence to support the application for the area defined in the application.

James Gray: My point is that it depends on how the registrar considers the application. If he is unlikely to grant registration for the whole of England, is he more or less likely to grant registration for Gloucestershire or one particular farm? To cover all options, the hunt will have to apply for all areas.

Alun Michael: That will not be necessary. It will depend on the evidence the applicant can provide to support his application. He will make an application that makes sense to the registrar who considers the application. There is no restriction in the Bill on the size of the area that the applicant proposes to hunt. It could be as large or as small as the applicant wishes, but the applicant must show that the two tests would be met in the area concerned. There is no need for applicants to show the registrar that they have the permission of the occupiers of the land on which they want to hunt. However, once registered, they will have to obtain that permission before they hunt on that land. The requirements for obtaining permission are clear and separate.
 The Bill has been deliberately framed with a view to straightforward and effective enforcement that will not put an unnecessary or unworkable burden on the police. Breach of other more technical conditions of registration, such as the number of persons authorised to hunt with the group or the record-keeping requirements, will be grounds for deregistration by the registrar or tribunal at the instigation of the prescribed animal welfare bodies. People deregistered for such breaches will be prevented from continuing to hunt. The police and the criminal courts will not be troubled by those technical issues, which are more suitable for consideration by the registrar or tribunal. The police and the courts will consider only the simple, factual questions of whether a person was registered to hunt a particular species in a particular area. 
 The amendments seek to make provision for the offence in clause 1 not to be committed by a person registered to hunt one or more species of wild mammal in one or more different areas. That would have a bizarre consequence: a person registered to hunt foxes in Northumbria who was separately registered to hunt hares in Leicestershire would not be committing an offence if he hunted foxes in Leicestershire and hares in Northumbria. The existence of his other, unconnected registration would mean that he would not be committing an offence, even though his activities would clearly be outside the registration system established by the Bill. I accept that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire tabled the amendments in an attempt to be helpful, but I am afraid that if they were to be accepted, they would merely introduce confusion. 
 The Bill does not prevent one application for more than one area or species, but the applicant would have to show that the two tests were passed for each species in each area. Having a sort of portmanteau application would not really have any benefit in terms of the registration process. The tests are quite clear and must 
 be passed for each species in each area. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his efforts to be helpful, but I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendments.

James Gray: I shall not dwell on this group of amendments. The Minister's clarification suggests that a gamekeeper wanting to kill foxes, mink and stoats will have to put in three applications rather than one, which would be an absurd waste of the registrar's time. There is no reason why the police should not come along and say, ''What are you hunting on this piece of ground? Can I see your licence?'' and if the licence specifies foxes on a certain farm, that is legal, and if it specifies mink somewhere else, that is legal. That would be a perfectly easy thing for the police to do. The Minister's explanation of the Bill demonstrates that he is not prepared to listen to reason, rather than that there is any particular sense behind it. None the less, he has clarified the point and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Rob Marris: I beg to move amendment No. 349, in
clause 2, page 1, line 12, at end insert
 'and
 ( ) each condition of the registration is complied with.'.

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 350, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 18, leave out 'and'. 
No. 339, in 
clause 2, page 1, line 20, at end insert 
 'and 
 ( ) each condition of the registration is complied with.'.

Rob Marris: I hope that these are simply clarifying amendments—perhaps the Minister will indicate if they are not. Amendment No. 349 would mean that there was a new paragraph, paragraph (c), at the end of subsection (1). Amendment No. 339 would mean that there was a new paragraph, paragraph (d), at the end of subsection (2). Amendment No. 350 simply tidies up the word ''and''. The amendments are intended to make it clear that if someone is registered to hunt, they must comply with the conditions of their registration, otherwise they will lose the protection from criminal responsibility that registration affords.

James Gray: The Opposition have no particular objection to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. However, they seem relatively unnecessary and it will be interesting to hear the Minister's response. I am not sure that the amendments achieve very much, but neither are they particularly obnoxious. I am very keen on amendments Nos. 93 and 76, which would carry out an important function. They would mean that an individual hunting and relying on group registration held by someone else would not have to meet the requirements for his name to be recorded under clause 28(5). I think that that is the intention of the Bill.

Marion Roe: Order. I hesitate to intervene, but the hon. Gentleman is referring to amendments that we have not yet reached.

James Gray: I apologise. You are quite right, Mr. Stevenson, I am getting ahead of myself. We are quite content with amendments Nos. 349, 350 and 339, as moved by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.

Edward Garnier: I hesitate to disagree with my hon. Friend, but if it unnecessary to put something in a Bill, it is necessary not to put it in the Bill. The Bill is complicated enough as it is; we should not add further unnecessary wording to it. I urge my hon. Friend to reconsider his decision. If we are to have the Bill at all, we might as well keep it as simple as possible. I am not sure that the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West achieve the purpose that he intends, but if my hon. Friend wants to go to the cross on the matter, I will reconsider.

Alun Michael: On this occasion, I find myself in the slightly odd position of agreeing with the hon. and learned Member for Harborough. The Bill as drafted is very simple. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is exploring the important question of what the impact will be of failing to observe any of the conditions. The result of that will be to be deregistered. From the point of deregistration, if the individual or group continue to undertake the activities, they will then be undertaking unregistered hunting and so be guilty of a criminal offence.
 The proposal is to insert a step in the process that would enable greater simplicity because the registrar and the tribunal, who are able to make technical and detailed judgments, would deal with the breaches rather than those being in the ambit of criminal courts. However, as I have suggested, should a breach lead to someone being deregistered, they would then, on the very straightforward test of whether they were registered or not, come back into the ambit of the criminal court. 
 That is sensible. Otherwise, we could have disproportionate penalties. For example, failure to make and retain a complete record of hunting activity, which might be a mere defect, would be subject to a level 5 fine of £5,000. The police and prosecuting authorities would also have to be involved in such a case, which would not be the best use of their resources. The registration and deregistration system, and the tribunal system, would cope well with such events. 
 My hon. Friend seeks to ensure that breaches of the registration requirements will be taken seriously. I assure him that that will be the case. I suggest, however, that deregistration is the appropriate step. If individuals were cavalier not only in observing the requirements of registration but towards the law, they would then be subject to criminal penalties. That is a sensible progression. I hope that I can satisfy my hon. Friend that, therefore, all the basics are covered in the Bill as drafted.

Rob Marris: I am reassured by the clarification given by my right hon. Friend the Minister. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

James Gray: I beg to move amendment No. 93, in
clause 2, page 1, line 14, at end insert 'and'.

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 76, in
clause 2, page 1, line 18, leave out from 'place' to end of line 20.

James Gray: I apologise for jumping the gun earlier.
During last week's discussion of clause 28(5), we agreed that the people who will have to be registered will be those hunting as defined by the Minister—those in control of the dogs. The other people, the field or followers, might be described as hunting under supervision. That seems relatively satisfactory, in so far as a matter with which we are unhappy in principle can be satisfactory. If there has to be registration, we should allow the field master and the whippers-in to be registered, while the field or followers—those on horses going along behind and the people in cars or on roads with binoculars—hunt under the supervision of the registered person. I think that that principle was agreed in previous debates, although there might be further definitional questions on clause 45 later, to make that absolutely clear. 
Amendment No. 76 would delete clause 2(2)(c). Clause 2(2) reads: 
 ''Hunting by an individual is also registered if— 
 (a) he participates in hunting . . . 
(b) at least one of the group is registered . . . 
(c) his participation in the hunting is recorded under arrangements made in pursuance of section 28(5).'' 
Our point is that that does not have to be recorded under section 28(5) because the people concerned are being supervised by someone who is registered under that section. That paragraph should therefore be removed. 
 There is a problem with the definitions in clause 45. Defining who is and who is not hunting remains subject to some debate and needs clarification. It is terribly important that we should know who is and who is not committing an offence by hunting without registration. I understand that those people who are in control of the dogs and those people who are following are not committing an offence. If they are taking part in supervised hunting, the people who are registered will supervise them. In that case, clause 2(2)(c) is unnecessary and we therefore seek its deletion.

Alun Michael: I shall be brief. I will not be drawn by the hon. Gentleman into discussing clause 45, although I accept that a number of hon. Members have raised issues about it in both this debate and an earlier debate. I shall be very happy to discuss the definition when we get to clause 45.
 Amendment No. 76 would remove the requirement that, on each occasion that hunting is carried out in reliance of group registration, a record should be made. As the hon. Gentleman has indicated, clause 28 sets out the automatic conditions to which group registration is subject, such as any injured or captured wild mammals being killed quickly. There is a requirement under subsection (5) to maintain a record of hunting activity in order to demonstrate compliance with the condition to which the hunting is subject. It 
 would be nonsense if there were no record of who was hunting in reliance of registration on a particular occasion. Such a record was required to be kept during the period of foot and mouth disease, and, as I said in an earlier sitting, the hunting authorities found that keeping such records was not onerous. Amendment No. 93 is entirely consequential. Keeping a record is essential and I therefore cannot agree to the amendment.

Edward Garnier: What is the purpose of keeping the names and addresses of hunt followers? What will happen to the information?

Alun Michael: It is in order that there should be a record of who is hunting in reliance of registration on a particular occasion. If there were a question about whether any activity met the requirements of the law, it would be known precisely who was involved and who was being supervised, otherwise there would be no indication of who the individuals involved in the activity as unregistered hunters were and what reliance they were placing on being within the boundaries of the legislation.

Edward Garnier: The Minister mentioned the foot and mouth regime under which that information was collected. That was, however, for an obvious public health reason, and the information was not made public in the same way as it is likely to be in this case. Am I right?

Alun Michael: Yes. There is no need for that information to be made public. It is only relevant if there is an allegation of a breach. On an earlier occasion, we discussed people who are not part of a hunt, such as hunt saboteurs or people who come out and get involved in the activity on the day, perhaps without the permission of those who are registered. Unless there is a clear record, there would be a question about who was being supervised by the registered hunters. The record is for the benefit of all those involved in an activity. It provides clarity on who is undertaking or involved in the activity in reliance of the registration.

Hugo Swire: Returning to my French tourists on Dartmoor who happen to stumble across a hunt and follow it all day, will they have their names and addresses taken, by whom and will they be informed on what the process is all about?

Alun Michael: If the tourists were hunting, they would need to be listed in that way because they would fall within the conditions of registration. If they went up to those involved in the activity and said, ''I can see that you are involved. Can I join in?'' the registered hunt would have to ask for their names and addresses to put on the record, or tell them to go away.

Hugo Swire: If the Minister has been to Dartmoor recently, he will realise that it is criss-crossed with public roads. Those same tourists could follow the hunt from different parts of Dartmoor and, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough said, they might find themselves at the kill when people
 following on horseback might not. How on earth can they be stopped from using public roads to dip in and out of a hunt that might cover a vast area of the moor during the day?

Alun Michael: I said earlier that people cannot hunt accidentally. Either they are involved in the activity or they are not. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman does not understand the definition of hunting, which we shall come to later. What is clear and what the amendments refer to is that if individuals rely on registration to be within the law, they must be listed. If they are not listed, there is no evidence that they are properly relying on the registration and are therefore within the law. It would be absurd to accept the amendment--[Interruption.]
 The hon. Member for East Devon made a confused intervention, so he must forgive me if my response reflects the nature of his question. It is perfectly, limpidly, crystal clear that if people are to rely on registration to comply with the law, those organising the activity must retain their names.

Rob Marris: The difficulty with removing clause 2(2)(c) is twofold. First, clause 28(6) states that the fifth automatic condition of group registration
 ''is that reasonable steps are taken to exclude from participation in hunting'' 
naughty individuals. It would be difficult for a hunt to do that if it did not know who was present. Secondly and more practically, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire may have overlooked clause 28(4), which requires a hunt to have insurance. It would be difficult to obtain insurance unless the insurers knew, under the duty of utmost good faith of disclosure by the person taking out the policy, who was covered by the policy.

John Gummer: One must recognise that there is a difficulty in collecting names and addresses and reference has been made to the foot and mouth outbreak. People will go to considerable effort to do something that benefits the countryside and protects livestock. As most people in the countryside believe that the Bill does neither, it will be seen as an incubus rather than a proper thing to do. If that is what the law will be, so be it, but the Minister must understand that there is a distinction between the two. Secondly, that will be a permanent feature of whatever hunting continues under the Bill.
 I hope that the Minister will explain what will happen to those names and addresses and how long they must be kept. One would normally expect a clear indication in the Bill as to how long they should be kept, by whom they should be kept and what then happens to them. We are concerned at all points in the Bill about where names and addresses will go and be available.

Gregory Barker: Can my right hon. Friend see any link between the erection of the extraordinary, bureaucratic system with the taking of thousands or
 possibly hundreds of thousands of names and addresses of hunt followers and the welfare of a single fox?

John Gummer: I am trying to be helpful to the Minister. As I said earlier, one of my purposes is to make the Bill better. If the Minister is right in saying that those who rely on the registration must give their names and addresses, he must help to assuage doubts by ensuring that the Bill gives clear indication as to what happens to the names and addresses. How long will they be kept and what will be done to ensure that they are deleted from the register? I want assurance on the matter, because there are some very nasty people out there who have been known to take physical revenge against people they dislike.
 On the first point, if a legal hunt has a licence, it does not matter who goes on the hunt unless they behave in a way that endangers the licence and those who are responsible for the hunt do nothing about it. They might lose the licence if they do not have good control over the hunt, but the Minister does not need to know that Mrs. Smith went on the hunt, because it does not matter. The licence will have been granted under specific terms.

Alun Michael: The right hon. Gentleman is right. I do not need to know, nor does anyone else, unless there is an allegation that someone has done something wrong or was not registered for the activity. The requirement that the record be kept is for the protection of registered hunters as well as those who rely on the registration to keep them within the law. It is for that purpose and none other.

John Gummer: I still do not understand. Mrs. Smith is alleged to have done something, but the list of names will not identify her. The person who made the allegation must identify her. If she is identified as having been on the hunt, she will be deemed under the Bill to have taken part in the hunt and be responsible for whatever action she may have taken, regardless of whether she is registered.
 It is extremely unlikely that anyone from the hunt would be able to say, ''Frankly, we forgot to put her name and address down. Therefore, it does not count.'' That would be a difficult argument. The list does not protect anyone or help the Government in implementing the law.

Edward Garnier: I was following my right hon. Friend until his last remark. The requirement for names and addresses will make the prosecuting authority's life much easier, because rather than getting evidence of misconduct or criminal behaviour, all that they will have to do is demand from the registrar the register of names. If Mrs. Smith is not on the register, she can be prosecuted for falsely claiming to be on the register, or the hunt can lose its licence because she is not on the register, but the substantive misconduct will be disregarded.

John Gummer: I hope that no one will behave in such an improper way, and I am not suggesting that anyone would. However, if the misconduct is substantive—or
 ''material'', a word that is used in the context of the present unhappy circumstances in Iraq—and is something that should be brought to the notice of the registrar, the fact that Mrs. Smith is or is not on the list is not the key issue. The questions that matter are whether she was present at the time, whether the allegation is true, whether it can be proved and whether it is of a material nature such that the licence should be withdrawn. Those are the key issues, but they are not affected by whether there is a list of names and addresses.
 It is all right for the Minister to talk as he does about the need for everyone to be law-abiding and sort themselves out. There is no doubt that we all agree about that—I have never suggested otherwise. However, several examples come up every week of people who are not law-abiding. I do not want to be partial, but many of them are people who want the Bill passed and strengthened so that hunting is banned. 
 They will concentrate on the few hunts that manage to get through the tortuous procedure, and the Mrs. Smiths of this world will be constantly harassed. Decent people should not have to give their names and addresses to do something that is legal, and they would be hunting only because it is legal.

Nicholas Soames: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the unfortunate recent case in Gloucestershire, in which the wife of the master of hounds was persecuted on her mobile telephone by antis? There is no doubt that the bad behaviour of such people would be exacerbated by keeping lists to which they would have free access.

John Gummer: I have made my point. Therefore, I rest my case until the time is more suitable.
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock. 
 Stevenson, Mr. George Chairman Ainger, Mr. Atherton, Ms Barker, Gregory Bradley, Peter Brown, Mr. Russell Cawsey, Mr. Flook, Mr. Foster, Mr. Michael Garnier, Mr. George Andrew Gray, Mr. Hall, Mr. Mike Holmes, Paul Luff, Mr. Mallaber, Judy Marris, Rob Martlew, Mr. Michael, Alun Öpik, Lembit Organ, Diana Owen, Albert Pickthall, Mr. Reed, Mr. Soames, Mr. Swire, Mr. Tami, Mark Tipping, Paddy Whitehead, Dr. Williams, Hywel